Pirate Bay: survey says that 80% of our torrents are legal

Pirate Bay spokesperson Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi took the stand today in Sweden as The Pirate Bay's trial entered its fifth day, and he made a startling claim: in his own survey, 80 percent of the torrents on the site pointed to material that was legal to share online.

In previous days, prosecutor Hakan Roswall and media industry lawyers pressed the defendants on whether they were aware that the site contained links to copyrighted material; the answer from Fredrik Neij was "yes," but only because content owners continually sent letters to The Pirate Bay asking them to remove links to certain materials.

Friday, Kolmisoppi revealed that he had looked more directly into the issue by performing a survey on 1,000 random torrents from the site. Along with some workers in chat rooms, Kolmisoppi tried to figure out how much of this material appeared to infringe copyright—though they apparently did so without downloading any of it.

The result? 70 to 80 percent of the material was deemed to be legal for sharing, and Kolmisoppi claimed that there was actually a larger proportion of infringing material on YouTube than on The Pirate Bay. (Read the excellent Twitter translation of the trial for more details from the testimony.)

The testimony fits with repeated defense claims that the site, despite its name, is really just a tool with plenty of legal uses. Infringement can be addressed by going after end-users, not the tool providers. (Attempts by the music industry to do just this across the US and Europe were not exactly embraced by the "tool makers," however.)

70 to 80 percent of the material was deemed to be legal for sharing, and Kolmisoppi claimed that there was actually a larger proportion of infringing material on YouTube than on The Pirate Bay.

Today's trial was also marked by a bizarre bit of geek speak as prosecutor Hakan Roswall (attempted to) pull out his geek card. TorrentFreak has the translation:

"When did you meet [fellow defendant Gottfrid] for the first time IRL?" asked the Prosecutor.
"We do not use the expression IRL," said Peter, "we use AFK."
"IRL?" questioned the judge.
"In Real Life," the Prosecutor explained to the judge.
"We do not use that expression," Peter noted. "Everything is in real life. We use AFK—Away From Keyboard."
"Well," said Roswall. "It seems I am a little bit out of date."

Music industry lawyer Peter Danowsky also had a chance to grill Kolmisoppi and began questioning him about various speeches and newspaper articles that had not previously been entered into evidence. Defense lawyers objected to the introduction of new evidence, and after a court recess, Danowsky had to turn over all documents he planned to use in the trial for photocopying.

Some of the questions, which involved Kolmisoppi's own views about copyright, were greeted with angry retorts about whether the trial was about alleged illegal activities or political viewpoints. Kolmisoppi followed these up with a Twitter post. "That was annoying," he wrote. "Now it's certain this #spectrial is political. Anyone hear a question that was not based on ideology?"

To shake off his annoyance, Kolmisoppi and The Pirate Bay gang are throwing a party tonight for 200 people. Not apparently worn out from his work on the stand today, Kolmisoppi will be making an appearance at 1am.

PWNING ROSWALL

While the party has nothing to do with the legal issues, it did prompt one of the administrators to write about the decentralized model of decision-making and activity that characterizes the Bay—and has proved so vexing to a prosecution intent on drawing up some kind of organized hierarchy.

In the post, one "Johan Allgoth" explained that people choose roles to fill that sound interesting: "Quite often these roles are abandoned. The network then reorganizes til someone is filling the role again, or, the role is disregarded by all nodes and that role dies out. This could happen to the party tonight, but that won't be the case. A party is ohh so nice.

"This is one of hundreds of examples of our management. It is how we have been operating since the very start. People have a hard time grasping it. They ask us; Who’s in charge? Who are you representing? What is your goal? What is your agenda? Why? When? How? These questions are wrongly posed and I am afraid I cant give you the right ones, that’s up to scholars later...

"There is no formal organisation. Only work with joy and no to full accountability. This is how we PWN U ROSWALL. The work that is being produced by the peers of the Spectrial is probably 'worth' six-seven figures. Thing is one could never buy it. It's a brave new world here, we are making a huge experiment."

While the "PWN U ROSWALL" bit is more than a little juvenile, there's something appealing about this model. "Work with joy" sounds like a pretty fair description of what people want out of their jobs, exactly the opposite of what W.H. Auden described in the lines:

As an unimportant clerk Writes I DO NOT LIKE MY WORK On a pink official form.

But is the work in question legal? That's what the professional judge and three lay judges overseeing the trial will have to decide in the next two weeks.

93 Reader Comments

Some of the questions, which involved Kolmisoppi's own views about copyright, were greeted with angry retorts about whether the trial was about alleged illegal activities or political viewpoints. Kolmisoppi followed these up with a Twitter post. "That was annoying," he wrote. "Now it's certain this #spectrial is political. Anyone hear a question that was not based on ideology?"

I can certainly see why his views would be mentioned. It's part of motive.

quote:

Friday, Kolmisoppi revealed that he had looked more directly into the issue by performing a survey on 1,000 random torrents from the site. Along with some workers in chat rooms, Kolmisoppi tried to figure out how much of this material appeared to infringe copyright—though they apparently did so without downloading any of it.

70 to 80% of 1,000? Or 70 to 80% of a 1,000 extrapolated to the rest of the content?

[quoteMusic industry lawyer Peter Danowsky also had a chance to grill Kolmisoppi and began questioning him about various speeches and newspaper articles that had not previously been entered into evidence. [/quote]

LOL, just yesterday people here were commenting on the possible Hollywood style introduction of evidence by the media lawyers. Here it is already, perhaps this was a small test to see if they could get away with introducing the killer blow on the last day ;-) .

Also wanted to say, I guess the impression the other article gave me was fairly correct- there's little hierarchy in the group, about no internal structure, and likely just abuot nobody really getting paid. You'd think the record companies would take a hint; your customers hate your business plan SO MUCH that they have finally self-organized into a giant, non-profit beast that you can't hardly deal with. I shake my head at them in the same way when I hear a news story about an obese person that needs a forktruck to be removed from their house; when does the clue bell finally go off and you realize you need to change?

The testimony fits with repeated defense claims that the site, despite its name, is really just a tool with plenty of legal uses.

I think the name of this unorganized organization is certainly something that will come back to haunt them. I mean, it's the difference between a "hammer" and a "bludgeon," isn't it? One is an innocuous tool, the other has an entirely different connotation. They might have been more successful had they adopted a name like "Botany Bay," instead.

I'm getting the feeling that the prosecution in this case is simply playing out enough rope to get these guys to hang themselves. I do not think the adults tasked with reaching a decision here are likely to be put off by abstract geekdoms like IRL and AFK... Nor do I think the defendants will likely be successful in painting themselves as an organization that essentially doesn't do anything except serve as a "tool." Rambling on about the incoherency of what Pirate Bay is in terms of a fluid, ever-changing structure that, again, "doesn't really do anything" is probably going to be counterproductive for these guys. IE, I'm not sure that the court here will be so easily confused and mislead. I sense a certain degree of flippancy and arrogance in the responses of these defendants--which in reality seem to be non-responses--and I don't think this will help them as much as they seem to think it will. Even though the defendants seem to think the entire proceedings are a "joke," I'm not sure that the court will ultimately come to share that opinion.

However, I do think the defendants are absolutely right in that so much of what the media companies rely on in the way of "evidence" that they present in these cases borders on propaganda, hearsay, ideology and speculation--to the degree that sometimes they don't present any evidence at all that actually bears upon the case at hand. In this sense the media companies are themselves guilty of flippancy and arrogance in that they often assume their gobbledygook will be accepted by the court as evidence just because they say it is evidence. Unfortunately, in some prior RIAA cases, this is what has happened.

I think the name of this unorganized organization is certainly something that will come back to haunt them. I mean, it's the difference between a "hammer" and a "bludgeon," isn't it? One is an innocuous tool, the other has an entirely different connotation. They might have been more successful had they adopted a name like "Botany Bay," instead.

Except they share the name with a significant political party. And the site at least makes a nod toward the nautical theme of pirates, so its not like copyright infringement is the only piracy that is under reference.

Except they share the name with a significant political party. And the site at least makes a nod toward the nautical theme of pirates, so its not like copyright infringement is the only piracy that is under reference.

Originally posted by WaltC:I think the name of this unorganized organization is certainly something that will come back to haunt them. I mean, it's the difference between a "hammer" and a "bludgeon," isn't it? One is an innocuous tool, the other has an entirely different connotation. They might have been more successful had they adopted a name like "Botany Bay," instead.

I'm getting the feeling that the prosecution in this case is simply playing out enough rope to get these guys to hang themselves.

If this indeed happens to them, I vote we name it the "Hans effect": Just because you're so smart doesn't mean that a jury won't send you away.

Except they share the name with a significant political party. And the site at least makes a nod toward the nautical theme of pirates, so its not like copyright infringement is the only piracy that is under reference.

Yes, good point! I had completely forgotten the local context.

Can the prosecution get in trouble for linking their name to illegal activity? Isn't that a fallacy or similar?

The testimony fits with repeated defense claims that the site, despite its name, is really just a tool with plenty of legal uses.

I think the name of this unorganized organization is certainly something that will come back to haunt them. I mean, it's the difference between a "hammer" and a "bludgeon," isn't it? One is an innocuous tool, the other has an entirely different connotation. They might have been more successful had they adopted a name like "Botany Bay," instead.

The name of the site was chosen by The Bureau of Piracy before any of the guys currently under trial took over.

There is also a publishing house called Piratförlaget in Sweden... should they also have to reconsider their choice of name?

quote:

I sense a certain degree of flippancy and arrogance in the responses of these defendants--which in reality seem to be non-responses--and I don't think this will help them as much as they seem to think it will. Even though the defendants seem to think the entire proceedings are a "joke," I'm not sure that the court will ultimately come to share that opinion.

I think the judge is more irritated by the antics of the plaintiff's lawyers.

If this indeed happens to them, I vote we name it the "Hans effect": Just because you're so smart doesn't mean that a jury won't send you away.

Well, that and Hans was guilty. As in, he totally killed his wife in cold blood. And did a bad job of covering it up. And lied on the stand. But, you know, maybe the jury just sent him to jail because he was so smart, I could go either way =P

2. If the answer to 1 is yes, then who is LEGALLY responsible for operating Pirate Bay?

I have no idea what the answers are to these questions. If I understand correctly (and it is quite possible I DON'T), Sweden specifically passed laws in the last year or two to address issue #1. I assume the prosecution feels they have a solid case. But who knows until the law is tested in the courts?

Issue 1 is huge in terms of future cases. Can tools which "induce" copyright be restricted in their behavior or not? Do the people who provide the tools have an obligation to police identified instances of prohibited activity (like DMCA requirements in the U.S., or laws against child pornography).

On issue 2, I feel the defendants have a weaker defense. By signing a contract for operation of the domain name, legal responsibility is determined whether or not you read the contract you signed. Handling of funds can also be determined as an operative role. However, even if it is not possible to make a legal determination of who operates the site and the defendants are not punished, legal pressure can be put on ISPs or their host country to shut the site down if issue #1 goes the prosecution's way.

Nate, thanks for the reports. I appreciate your description of the court from yesterday.

So, he sampled 1000 torrents, but didn't download them. Is that like smoking pot, but not inhaling?

I realize the lawyers here are trying to get some kind of precedence set to make torrent sites police illegal traffic better (instead of just offering a torrent site to everyone and saying "we don't control who posts what"). But if the lawyers get their victory against PB on this one, it'll just force illegal torrenters onto invitation-only servers.

It's like pushing on a waterbed. Just because you push one lump down doesn't mean the water in the lump disappears ... it merely redistributes itself to some place else. To truly solve the problem, they need to find a way to stop people from posting illegal torrents. How would they do that? I don't know. But it seems they don't want to bother tackling that problem, so they decide to toss tons of money attacking a public torrent site instead. Attacking PB isn't solving anything, it's just shifting blame. They need to start taking accountability for their own failing business models, change them, adapt, and the problem will decrease naturally.

I'm getting the feeling that the prosecution in this case is simply playing out enough rope to get these guys to hang themselves. I do not think the adults tasked with reaching a decision here are likely to be put off by abstract geekdoms like IRL and AFK...

You don't think that's what the prosecution was trying to do there? The defendants have acted quite juvenile so far. It's not a bad strategy to run with that. Trick them into using words and acronyms that you can twist later. Try to make it seem like they don't get that the net is real life. It's a slimy tactic (dodged quite effectively I might add) but a good deal of trial wrangling is done by subtle brush strokes.

Unless The Pirate Bay's servers are hosting actual files that are holding copyrighted material, it is very doubtful that any government will be able to do anything about it. Even though the speculation might be that they are assisting with illegal file downloads, somebody is going to have to actually prove that The Pirate Bay is willfully and knowingly assisting users with illegal activity, a task that will be very difficult.

When is our society going to realize the entire concept of "Intelluctual Property Rights" is very antiquated and needs to be updated to the 21st century. The Internet and digital technology changes everything, if a person has access to get it, they're gonna take it, it's just that plain and simple and until the RIAA and the MPAA realize they can't stop it and should start thinking of ways to join it and profit from it - sorry, but they are hosed!

Nate Anderson, the author, didn't point out the obvious - that traffic amounts for legal vs. illegal content could be very different than number of torrents. If you're going to provide analysis in your article (which is welcomed by the way) please try to think of obvious questions readers will have. Several posters above thought of this question - it's an interesting question.

It's similar to the Republican statement:"Look at this county-by-county map of the United States! Look how RED (Republican) it is!!""But nobody LIVES in those wide swaths of desert/rural areas!"

Just because land is there, it doesn't mean a lot of people live there. Just because it is a torrent, it doesn't mean it has a lot of traffic.

I think the point that the defendants are making with their flippancy towards the prosecution is quite clear: this trial doesn't matter. So what if they put a couple people in jail? It doesn't matter. The Pirate Bay won't simply cease to exist because of this trial. The millions of people that use it and thousands of people that operate and maintain The Pirate Bay's main site will simply move onto something else. Different name possibly, different function possibly, but at the end of the day, like another posted has already pointed out, its like poking at a bulge in a water bed.

quote:

if in a store "only 20%" of it's sales were cocaine. Would that make them drug dealers?

If 20% of the cars driving on a street are carrying cocaine, should we bulldoze the street?

Hmmm, isnt Ars coverage getting more an more one sided. I expected it to be pro-filesharing but it seems to be getting more so every day. Torrentfreak seems halfway decent, but its annoying how they constantly refer to the industry lawyers as "the prosecution". They are the representatives of the injured party, not part of the prosecution itself, in swedish trials the injured partys representatives are also allowed to question and bring in evidence in a trial. As I've had it explained to me, the prosecution cannot introduce evidence that has not been cleared pre-trial (in the "förundersökning"), but the lawyers for the injured party can introduce new evidence to show contradictions in a witness answers.For a pretty good summary in english of the news surrounding TPB, the Local seems to be a good alternative.http://www.thelocal.se/piratebay/

"Quite often these roles are abandoned. The network then reorganizes til someone is filling the role again, or, the role is disregarded by all nodes and that role dies out. This could happen to the party tonight, but that won't be the case. A party is ohh so nice.

"This is one of hundreds of examples of our management. It is how we have been operating since the very start. People have a hard time grasping it. They ask us; Who’s in charge? Who are you representing? What is your goal? What is your agenda? Why? When? How? These questions are wrongly posed and I am afraid I cant give you the right ones, that’s up to scholars later...

"There is no formal organisation. Only work with joy and no to full accountability. This is how we PWN U ROSWALL. The work that is being produced by the peers of the Spectrial is probably 'worth' six-seven figures. Thing is one could never buy it. It's a brave new world here, we are making a huge experiment."

So who pays the bills, and who cashes the checks? Anyone who feels like it? Could I cash the checks? I don't understand why the prosecution is having such a difficult time getting to the bottom of this. Doesn't Sweden have something analogous to the IRS?

Originally posted by Beige Alert:Hmmm, isnt Ars coverage getting more an more one sided. I expected it to be pro-filesharing but it seems to be getting more so every day. Torrentfreak seems halfway decent, but its annoying how they constantly refer to the industry lawyers as "the prosecution". They are the representatives of the injured party, not part of the prosecution itself, in swedish trials the injured partys representatives are also allowed to question and bring in evidence in a trial. As I've had it explained to me, the prosecution cannot introduce evidence that has not been cleared pre-trial (in the "förundersökning"), but the lawyers for the injured party can introduce new evidence to show contradictions in a witness answers.For a pretty good summary in english of the news surrounding TPB, the Local seems to be a good alternative.http://www.thelocal.se/piratebay/

IANAL, but in this case it is a combined criminal and civil case, so the rules might be a bit fucked up. But at least it's not a American court yet as the industry's lawyers learned today (or did they? ). Also, I don't think the new material they brought up today is considered evidence... but as I said: IANAL.

"Quite often these roles are abandoned. The network then reorganizes til someone is filling the role again, or, the role is disregarded by all nodes and that role dies out. This could happen to the party tonight, but that won't be the case. A party is ohh so nice.

"This is one of hundreds of examples of our management. It is how we have been operating since the very start. People have a hard time grasping it. They ask us; Who’s in charge? Who are you representing? What is your goal? What is your agenda? Why? When? How? These questions are wrongly posed and I am afraid I cant give you the right ones, that’s up to scholars later...

"There is no formal organisation. Only work with joy and no to full accountability. This is how we PWN U ROSWALL. The work that is being produced by the peers of the Spectrial is probably 'worth' six-seven figures. Thing is one could never buy it. It's a brave new world here, we are making a huge experiment."

So who pays the bills, and who cashes the checks? Anyone who feels like it? Could I cash the checks? I don't understand why the prosecution is having such a difficult time getting to the bottom of this. Doesn't Sweden have something analogous to the IRS?

They do, out of their own pockets. It already came up in court. They detailed the costs, how they had to periodically replace servers, etc.

I am not a lawyer either, so everything I say is hearsay (although much of it is from a lawyer). Clearly both the defense attorney and the court got tired of the industry lawyers asking more or less leading questions and then producing material showing contradictions in the replies they got, and the court settled it by making the industry attorney present the material to the defense beforehand so the defendants know what the lawyers know they've previously said.